Watch: Keith Olbermann on the Coming Walmart Presidency
On that horrible, damaging Supreme Court decision allowing corporations to spend freely on elections yesterday.
"This is a Supreme Court-sanctioned murder of what little democracy is left in this Democracy."
A Keith Olbermann must watch, AFTER THE JUMP...
NYT: "Democrats predicted that Republicans would benefit most from the decision, because they are the traditional allies of big corporations, who have more money to spend than unions. In a statement shortly after the decision, President Obama called it 'a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics.'"
Posted Jan. 22,2010 at 7:16 AM EST by Andy Towle in Keith Olbermann, News, Supreme Court | Permalink
SOUNDS LIKE ITS TIME TO THINK ABOUT MOVING OUT OF AMERICA!
Posted by: Disgusted American | Jan 22, 2010 8:28:07 AM
Keith has been a bit of a drama-queen lately (forgive me if your offended), but he hit the nail on the head with this one. We desperately need to limit or eliminate corporate personhood through a new constitutional amendment. I'm down with Capitalism, but if we don't act, Corporatism will be the death of our Democratic Republic.
Posted by: Aaron Rowland | Jan 22, 2010 8:28:34 AM
Ken can get loud - but how could you be a drama queen about this? This is truly a part and parcel selling of America. And the irony is that more people know who's trying out for American Idol than are even blithely aware of this ruling.
I suppose we can all get married soon. We just need David Geffen to buy us that right.
Posted by: Mother Mea Culpa | Jan 22, 2010 9:12:53 AM
How is this different than SEIU giving millions to Obama and then brokering a backroom deal so that their people don't have to pay taxes? I fully understand the fear about corporations taking over, but shouldn't private companies have the right to spend money as they so choose?
It's got to be all or nothing. Either both unions and companies cannot give as much as they want or they can. It's not fair for unions to be able to do it but companies cannot. It is unconstitutional to single out one sector in favor of another. The court is not saying they "like" this idea, they are just saying that the separation is unconstitutional.
Posted by: BC | Jan 22, 2010 9:51:33 AM
It is truly a frightening proposition. The downward spiral has begun. Orwell was right. Fascist corporations will buy and sell the presidency and the rest of us "drones" will be left to rot. The age of america has abruptly come to an end--- sponsored by your friendly neighborhood Wal-Mart of course.
Posted by: androjai | Jan 22, 2010 9:54:47 AM
Any see the movie "Idiocracy" with Maya Rudolph and Luke Wilson? Maybe Obama should Netflix it and see what it would be like if the White House were sponsored by a sports drink...
Posted by: bill whitis | Jan 22, 2010 10:01:13 AM
How is this going to be any different than what was already actually happening? So now it will be in the open instead of being hidden?
Posted by: Jason Young | Jan 22, 2010 10:22:35 AM
Even more on point than Idiocracy and Orwell, people should read Max Barry's Jennifer Government.
It's a bold new America folks. John Nike is about to take over the world.
Posted by: Aaron Rowland | Jan 22, 2010 10:29:31 AM
Think about it this way too. We still vote. I don't care how many ads or money someone has or the D or R after their name - if I don't like their policies, I will not vote for them. Isn't it kind of an elitist belief that people will be like drones and vote for the guy with the fancy ads?
This can be good. I can force the less financially able candidates to really prove themselves on the issues.
Posted by: BC | Jan 22, 2010 11:29:02 AM
Don't be naive. Money is EVERYTHING when it comes to political campaigns. Money buys not only ads, but huge amounts of ad space, leaflets, door hangers, yard signs, political operatives, paid canvassers, event and speech funding, etc.
If a 10 billion dollar corporation decides to pay 50 million to buy a senator, the opponent is likely doomed. A large majority of Mass special election voters supported the democratic health plan. Issues mean nothing to a large chunk of the electorate. As long as the ads are shiny and the candidate is good looking, they've found their candidate.
Posted by: Aaron Rowland | Jan 22, 2010 12:14:22 PM
I see what you mean there Aaron, but actually, a lot of MA voters recognized that they already pay for their own healthcare so why should they pay for Nebraska, Louisiana, etc. But in any case -it is going to take the "underdogs" and their supporters to get out and talk to people and prove themselves without the commercials. It is unfortunate that some people do vote only on the flashy commercials and the pretty signs. But that is our system.
And anyway, like Jason said above...they've been getting the money behind closed doors. We just weren't "Allowed" to see it. Now we will see it. So if I am not a fan of Citibank and Citibank gives candidate A 50 million dollars, I need to look long and hard at that candidate. It'll all be in the open now. More transparency.
Posted by: BC | Jan 22, 2010 12:29:42 PM
"It'll all be in the open now. More transparency."
BC. That is soo naive it isn't even funny. Closed door meetings will probably happen even more now. This ruling was a greenlight for 100x more chances for corruption. Closed door meetings happens because they don't want anyone outside to see what they're doing, legal or not.
Posted by: Nevermind | Jan 22, 2010 1:09:02 PM
The ruling leaves in place the ban on donations to individual campaigns. What the court found was that there are too many crass distinctions in the law. For example, newspapers get a pass to write editorials (and they have about zero influence on elections), but other corporations cannot make ads in favor or against candidates. Likewise, the FEC was going to ban movies, books and perhaps blogs from "giving in kind" during an election, which really smacks of censorship, so they made a particularly broad (sweeping?) ruling to stop this all in its tracks. Of course, this might engender backrooms deals of the flavor of "make an ad for me and I'll vote for your tax break", but we'll see how that plays out.
Posted by: anon | Jan 22, 2010 3:03:44 PM
There is a small window for Congress to act. Since corporations are entities defined by law, Congress can change their definition to include limitations in order to counteract this terrible ruling by SCOTUS.
Corporate chiefs, be careful what you wish for. The concentration of wealth and political power will trap ceo plutocrats inside gilded cages of armed compounds like in Latin America.
However, you can choose to not continue the further concentration of power, but promote a more even distribution of wealth like Northern Europe, to create a place where the PM, president or CEO can safely walk the streets. Bodyguards or fresh air? Your choice.
Posted by: Marco Luxe | Jan 22, 2010 4:02:51 PM
So let me get this right - some of you think that it is OK for unions to get government tax breaks and to spend millions of dollars on candidates that will cave to their desires, but it's not ok for private businesses to do the same? The whole point is that it is not right to say these people can while those people cannot (sound familiar???).
And, read the actual ruling. ANON is right -the entire case was not just about monetary donations. They had to decide the whole case. But the media just wants to focus on the money part b/c that is what Dems are saying will hurt them.
Posted by: BC | Jan 22, 2010 4:04:30 PM
I have only one question. If corporations are the equivalent of citizens, will a hostile takeover be treated as murder, rape, enforced slavery or cannibalism?
Posted by: Bob | Jan 22, 2010 7:32:13 PM
The congress needs to act to counter this ruling.
Posted by: Bill | Jan 23, 2010 12:17:33 PM
I think Keith is just concerned that the media will loose control of who gets elected into office.
Posted by: DVDINORL | Jan 23, 2010 12:24:45 PM
Olbermann is so whacky these days that his fellow liberal Jon Stewart is doing hilarious impressions mocking him. His temper tantrums about Scott Brown were side-splitting.
So SEIU and big labor can take their forced union dues and spend them in the political process, but corporations cannot. What's worse is Acorn using government funds to help their far left agenda candidates get elected. Disgusting.
No limits and report everything promptly -- then let the voters decide. That's the answer.
Posted by: LincolnLounger | Jan 23, 2010 5:20:46 PM
Are corporations really persons?
Do corporations think?
Do corporations grieve when a loved one dies as a result of a lack of adequate health care?
If a corporation ever committed an unspeakable crime against the American people, could IT be sent to federal prison? (Note the operative word here: "It")
Has a corporation ever given its life for its country?
Has a corporation ever been killed in an accident as the result of a design flaw in the automobile it was driving?
Has a corporation ever written a novel that inspired millions?
Has a corporation ever risked its life by climbing a ladder to save a child from a burning house?
Has a corporation ever won an Oscar? Or an Emmy? Or the Nobel Peace Prize? Or the Pulitzer Prize in Biography?
Has a corporation ever been shot and killed by someone who was using an illegal and unregistered gun?
Has a corporation ever paused to reflect upon the simple beauty of an autumn sunset or a brilliant winter moon rising on the horizon?
If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a noise if there are no corporations there to hear it?
Should corporations kiss on the first date?
Our lives - yours and mine - have more worth than any corporation. To say that the Supreme Court made a awful decision on Thursday is an understatement. Not only is it an obscene ruling - it's an insult to our humanity.
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
Posted by: Tom Degan | Jan 24, 2010 7:49:36 AM